From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Thu Jan 31 18:21:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 1 Feb 2002 02:21:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 26011 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 02:21:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2002 02:21:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 02:21:59 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.82]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020201022157.ZQSN7000.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:21:57 +0000 To: "lojban" Subject: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:21:18 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=77248971 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Xod: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > Xod: > > > > I have argued that ".ui" has a truth value. It is "true" when the speaker > > is actually happy. All utterances have truth value, even "ouch!". > > ******************************************* > > > > Your contention is incorrect. The difference between "ui" and "mi gleki" > > is precisely that only the latter has a truth value. > > How do you intend to prove to me that ".ui" lacks a truth value? Maybe someone will come up with further arguments, but I offer this: the reasoning that would give ui a truth value would also give smiles and frowns truth values, and could be further pursued to give smoke a truth value (smoke is true iff there is fire; from the presence of smoke one can deduce the presence of fire). It leads to a reductio ad absurdum, whereby the valid and useful notion of propositionality is destroyed. --And.